Question: When we refer to Adam's sin, are we referring to Adam and Eve's disobedience, or is sin primarily passed down through Adam alone? Do we also carry our father's sins and our father's father's sin all the way to Adam? Isn’t it just guilt that we carry from Adam’s sin?

Answer: The consequence of Adam's sin is not guilt but death and the corrupt nature. Death means being separated from God. Adam and Eve's disobedience made them both dead. A dead person cannot give life. Therefore, we are born dead, and it is only through baptism that we are born again regaining the image of God, which Adam had enjoyed before his fall. Thus, everyone born from Adam is dead and this is different from bearing the sins of our fathers and father's fathers since God made it clear to us that no one will bear the guilt of his father or his son, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezek 18:20).

Also from that website, a summary of Adam & Eve, By H.H. Pope Shenouda III Patriarch of the See of St mark, Alexandria:

It is written, “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27). Adam and Eve were perfect and good (Gen 1:27); they had a ‘good’ human nature that was created ‘in the image of God’. After the fall, this image was distorted; the moral human nature was wounded, weakened and damaged by sin. A predisposition to sin invaded the human nature. It is written that Adam begot a son in his own likeness, after his image (Gen 5:3). In other words, Adam begot a son in his own ‘distorted’ image. Therefore, St. Paul said, “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others” (Eph 2:3). King David also said, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5).

The sinful human nature that we inherited is sentenced to death for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Thus death reigned over all humanity as St. Paul said, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12), “by one man disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19). Indeed, “The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one” (Ps 14:2-3).

In addition, the whole creation was also affected by the fall, God told Adam, “Cursed is the ground for your sake” (Gen 3:17). God has given dominion of the world to Adam and due to Adam’s sin “death entered the world” (Rom 5:12). Therefore, St. Paul said, “The creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now” (Rom 8:21-22). Even the wild nature and cannibalism in the animal kingdom is said to be due to the fall of Adam since all animals were created vegetarians (Gen 1:29-30)

The same pdf file contains a short refutation of the calvinistic concept of original sin, and stresses:

Quote

"[The]...Holy Scripture...says, “The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut 24:16), also, “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (Ezek 18:20). Therefore, what we inherit or what is transmitted to us is Adam’s fallen human nature and not his actual sin."

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Are you sure about that? Somebody from another web-site once quoted a statement by Metropolitan Beshoy to the effect that we do indeed need to be baptized to wash away the sin of Adam......could someone find that for me?

From my studies, I have never seen any substantial difference between the two Orthodox families on the question of original sin and the need for Holy Baptism. A good source for understanding these and many other Orthodox teachings we share in common is Fr. Thomas Hopko's "Raibow Series," entitled The Orthodox Faith which is available on-line @ http://www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2

Am I sure about what? I wasn’t expressing my own opinion, my post simply contained quotations presenting the view of the Coptic church as represented by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III and His Grace Bishop Youssef; that we do NOT inherit the original sin of Adam or the guilt of the original sin, but rather the natural consequences of that sin, it’s stain, it’s aftermath - a fallen human nature inclined to rebellion and sin, and hence death itself.

Quote

Somebody from another web-site once quoted a statement by Metropolitan Beshoy to the effect that we do indeed need to be baptized to wash away the sin of Adam......

I don’t think so; I’ve never heard of this. Even if it were true, then he is simply wrong --that is IF he has applied it in a context indicating that baptism washes away some sort of inherited sin (Footnote 1). I think H. H. Pope Shenouda is more of an authority than H.G. Metropolitan Bishoy, though the latter should never be in conflict with the former.

Footnote 1: Assuming it were true that H.G. said something along the lines of what you said; We have to understand that both the writings of H.H and H.G are originally written in Arabic and then translated by someone else on their behalf; and this can certainly pose some problems with regards to misleading statements if they are not properly or carefully translated or qualified according to the writers subjectively intended meaning. Usually what I have found, is that the term “Original sin” is found in a few translated OO writings in an affirmative sense (i.e. that the OO do adhere to it), however the term itself is used to denote in effect the actual consequences of the actual original sin of Adam and Eve, rather than the actual original sin itself. Evidence for this can be found in one of H.H. translated books - Comparative Theology Vol. 1.

On page 83 of the translated version; he poses for himself a typical protestant objection against Baptism:

Quote

Question 10: How can it be that a person gets baptized to wash away THE ORIGINAL SIN of Adam so long as he is born of parents who had been baptiszed and washed away of that sin?

He answers it accordingly:

Quote

THE CONDEMNATION OF DEATH IS NOT INHERITRED from the immediate parents so that we can be free from it by their being baptized. We inherited the condemnation of death directly from Adam and Eve; the first human beings, because we were in Adam’s loins when his nature became corrupt and was condemned to death. Therefore all Adam’s offspring that were in his loins became UNDER THE CONDEMNATION OF DEATH. We also as well as all Adam’s offspring became subject to this death. According to Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:22]..death was a judgement rendered on all mankind, being the offspring of Adam. Salvation from death is personal for every individual separately whether his parents had obtained salvation or not. This salvation requires repentance and believing in Christ’s blood, in baptism and in all other means of grace.

[Psalm 51:5 - “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me”. We are born in corruption until we are delievered from the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:21). But when should we be delievered from this corruotion? The Apostle says concerning our bodies: “The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruptionGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªfor this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this moral must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:42). When will this happen? When the trumpet sounds and the dead be raised.

NOTE: The question H.Hposes for himself defines baptism as the washing away of the original sin of Adam. H.H. however answers it in a manner which interchanges the expression “original sin” (and hence defines it) with the condemnation of death which he understands as the consequence of our corrupt nature, which is in itself a consequence of the actual original sin. The concluding paragraph of H.H. further emphasizes this, for though the question asks how a child can inherit original sin from their parents who should have been cleansed from this original sin at baptism; H.H. answers by saying that the bible teaches that we are all born in corruption and continue to live in corruption until we are delivered from it completely, implicitly proving his understanding of the expression original sin (as it is translated) as one that denotes the corrupt nature of humanity and its consequent condemnation to death, rather than the ACTUAL sin itself.

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Notice how he distinguishes the “original” sin from “actual sins”. If he understood the inheritance of original sin as the inheritance of an actual sin, the sentence would be more appropriately translated: “It washes the soul from both the original and OTHER (or OTHER ACTUAL) sins which the baptized had committed before his baptism.”

Thus my theory above is now sealed as truth according to all the relevant contextual factors I have brought forth: whenever the term original sin is employed in the translated writings of H.H. and H.G. in the context of Adam’s ancestors “inheriting it” or needing to be “washed from it”, it should not be understood as the actual sin itself, but rather the consequences of it: The corrupt and fallen human nature, and the ultimate condemnation of and subjection to death.

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I must be missing what is the confusion or debate here. We are affected by original sin by the very fact that we are human and chidren of our first parents. Our nature itself is fallen and we inherit this self-induced condemnation of death (cf. Rom. 5-8). In Baptism, through Christ, we die (to death) and rise with Christ to new life (Rom. 6).

The doctrine of original sin is defined quite nicely by the Orthodox Study Bible: The fact that every person born comes into the world stained with the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve and of their other ancestors. These consequences are chiefly: (1) mortality, (2) a tendency to sin, and (3) alienation from God and from other people. Original sin does not carry guilt, however, for a person is guilty only of his or her own sins, not of those of Adam..."

There is also a very succint explanation of Holy Baptism in the OSB which I could post if needed.

Actually, St. Athanasius and other Alexandrian theologians would rather have used "Corrupt Nature" and not "Original Sin." We inherited the consequences, that is the Corrupted nature, which is essentially corrupt anyway without unity with God.

God bless.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Here's an exact quote that can shed light into St. Athanasius' beliefs of the "Original Sin" or "Corrupt Nature:"

Quote

You must know, moreover, that the corruption which had set in was not external to the body but established within it. The need, therefore, was that life should cleave to it in corruption's place, so that, just as death was brought into being in the body, life also might be engendered in it. If death had been exterior to the body, life might fittingly have been the same. But if death was within the body, woven into its very substance and dominating it as though completely one with it, the need was for Life to be woven into it instead, so that the body by thus enduing itself with life might cast corruption off. Suppose the Word had come outside the body instead of in it, He would, of course, have defeated death, because death is powerless against the Life. But the corruption inherent in the body would have remained in it none the less. Naturally, therefore, the Savior assumed a body for Himself, in order that the body, being interwoven as it were with life, should no longer remain a mortal thing, in thrall to death, but as endued with immortality and risen from death, should thenceforth remain immortal.

Words underlined are key to understanding St. Athanasius' thoughts. You can find this in exactly Part 44 of Chapter 7 in that book.

God bless.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Thank you minasoliman, that was an awesome chapter. I think I might have to make that book my next read. I'm currently burrowing through "The teaching of St. Gregory" which was the basic dogma our Holy Illuminator imparted to our people when he converted our nation to Christianity. Every paragraph I read is like walking in paradise. Thank God for the wisdom and faith our Holy Fathers have passed on to us!

I notice that St. Athanasios roots his above comments in his teaching on the Incarnation. His teaching is crystal clear and explains not only why our Lord was incarnated but also why He had to die and thus trample down Death by His death. I also notice that St. Athanasios uses the word corruption synonymously with death.

I also enjoyed the earlier comments in this thread by the hierarchs of the Alexandrian Church (especially H.H. . Its nice to see the Orthodox faith being so zealously preserved from all error by our leaders.

You see, the problem with this is that far too many OO Clergy and Theologians argue in favor of the wrong beliefs of total depravity and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Met. Bishoy has argued for it, I have been told that Pope Shenouda (memory eternal!) has argued for it. And an encyclical letter from Pat. Mar Ignatius Zaka also seems to show support for this erroneous innovation. How do we address the spread of this wrong belief within our Communion? My whole life I have believed in this Augustinian teaching; until a few years ago I listened to an EO speaker say that Orthodoxy denies it. When I talked to my own Priest about the issue, he confirmed what I had heard. That is, we do not believe we inherit Adam's guilt. How do you suggest we prevent this wrong belief from leading others astray?

You see, the problem with this is that far too many OO Clergy and Theologians argue in favor of the wrong beliefs of total depravity and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Met. Bishoy has argued for it, I have been told that Pope Shenouda (memory eternal!) has argued for it. And an encyclical letter from Pat. Mar Ignatius Zaka also seems to show support for this erroneous innovation. How do we address the spread of this wrong belief within our Communion? My whole life I have believed in this Augustinian teaching; until a few years ago I listened to an EO speaker say that Orthodoxy denies it. When I talked to my own Priest about the issue, he confirmed what I had heard. That is, we do not believe we inherit Adam's guilt. How do you suggest we prevent this wrong belief from leading others astray?

^Yeah. Thankfully, this belief is dying out within the Church of Alexandria. Just last Friday at a meeting where a guest speaker discussed "The Theotokos in an Orthodox Perspective", he did used phrases like "inherit the original sin" to describe the Orthodox belief vs. the Immaculate Conception dogma, but he clarified saying that we do not inherit the guilt of the "original sin", rather, the consequences or corrupt nature of said sin. At a youth meeting I heard them affirming the same principle. But many Copts believe in original sin simply because "it is [supposedly] the teaching of the [Coptic] Pope." To which I then facepalm.

2,900 posts!

« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 02:44:38 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

At a youth meeting I heard them affirming the same principle. But many Copts believe in original sin simply because "it is [supposedly] the teaching of the [Coptic] Pope." To which I then facepalm.!

Yes, but do folks actually mean what the Latins imply by Original Sin or is it just a semantics thing? I have know and seen Ethiopian clergy also interchangeably use the terms "Ancestral Sin" and "Original Sin" when speaking or writing in English, but NONE of them have ever asserted the Ethiopian tradition to follow that Latin reasoning, rather the Ethiopian teaching is soundly Orthodox, even if the priests use their English as a second (or even third or fourth) language loosely

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

^In some cases it is just semantics. However, many Copts I have spoken to do believe we inherit the actual guilt of Adam.

Ouch. That is unfortunate, I will continue to pray for our mutual Coptic brothers and sisters who may be caught up in that. In Ethiopia, some Orthodox Christians have also been similarly caught up in believing in the Immaculate Conception, even after the clergy all the way up to the His Holiness the Patriarch have insistently discredited this un-Orthodox and distinctively non-Ethiopian teaching.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

But, in the Orthodox concept, is it OK to say "we inherit Ancestral sin", so long as we are just referring to the fact that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the guilt itself?

I would think so, as with most Orthodox concepts, English often requires a bit of an asterisk* explanation..

It seems me that the Orthodox Fathers have always conceived of the inheritance of Sin in an almost biological sense of a corrupted nature. It is almost like our biology has come to be part of our separation from God, and this is what he inherited from Adam and Even, and how Christ through the Incarnation biologically restored human nature from the corruption. The Latin Fathers on the other hand, seem to examine the inheritance of Sin in a more moral, philosophical, and spiritual sense. This is why "guilt" is more so emphasised in the Latin explanations, and "corruption" more so in the Eastern mind set. However, the word guilt is equally used by Oriental Fathers, including His Holiness Pope Shenouda, however again, these fathers should be taken with the asterisk of the context of ALL their writings and sermons taken together, which are soundly Orthodox.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

But, in the Orthodox concept, is it OK to say "we inherit Ancestral sin", so long as we are just referring to the fact that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the guilt itself?

I would think so, as with most Orthodox concepts, English often requires a bit of an asterisk* explanation..

It seems me that the Orthodox Fathers have always conceived of the inheritance of Sin in an almost biological sense of a corrupted nature. It is almost like our biology has come to be part of our separation from God, and this is what he inherited from Adam and Even, and how Christ through the Incarnation biologically restored human nature from the corruption. The Latin Fathers on the other hand, seem to examine the inheritance of Sin in a more moral, philosophical, and spiritual sense. This is why "guilt" is more so emphasised in the Latin explanations, and "corruption" more so in the Eastern mind set. However, the word guilt is equally used by Oriental Fathers, including His Holiness Pope Shenouda, however again, these fathers should be taken with the asterisk of the context of ALL their writings and sermons taken together, which are soundly Orthodox.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I don't belive the fathers leave man completely unaccountable for the actions of Adam. I believe it's classified under a disordered passion instead of an inherit guilt. Even the RCC has in recent years softened there stance on there previously held belief.

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

I would be interested in knowing the same as Severian. I too was first shocked when i understood what the distinction was between the Orthodox concept of ancestral sin vs the original guilt ideas of the west. I do however know that Russian theology went through the same hurdle as some of their prominent theologians once taught the idea of original guilt but they are far past this hurdle now. I dont recall the source for that info though, i will search for it

Yes i rather do think that Augustin is the one who is responsible for the error of the catholic church and i think blessed augustin, who dominated the landscape of latin theology for so long, is the main drive for this erroneous belief,

From Fr. Athanasius' small 24 page booklet on Augustin (mainly on his errors);

"By the justice of God in some sense, the human race was delivered into the power of the devil; the sin of the first man passing over originally into all of both sexes in their birth through conjugal union, and the debt of our first parents binding their whole posterity."

^In some cases it is just semantics. However, many Copts I have spoken to do believe we inherit the actual guilt of Adam.

Ouch. That is unfortunate, I will continue to pray for our mutual Coptic brothers and sisters who may be caught up in that. In Ethiopia, some Orthodox Christians have also been similarly caught up in believing in the Immaculate Conception, even after the clergy all the way up to the His Holiness the Patriarch have insistently discredited this un-Orthodox and distinctively non-Ethiopian teaching.

stay blessed,habte selassie

But, of those Ethiopian Orthodox who do believe in the IC, would they not have to believe in inherited guilt by corollary? After all, doesn't the IC teach that the Theotokos is free from Adam's guilt? From my understanding, the reason the Orthodox do not believe in the IC is because we do not believe in inherent guilt to begin with, so it is sort of a moot point for us.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

What about Original Sin ?It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.

Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."

"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."

But, in the Orthodox concept, is it OK to say "we inherit Ancestral sin", so long as we are just referring to the fact that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the guilt itself?

I would think so, as with most Orthodox concepts, English often requires a bit of an asterisk* explanation..

It seems me that the Orthodox Fathers have always conceived of the inheritance of Sin in an almost biological sense of a corrupted nature. It is almost like our biology has come to be part of our separation from God, and this is what he inherited from Adam and Even, and how Christ through the Incarnation biologically restored human nature from the corruption. The Latin Fathers on the other hand, seem to examine the inheritance of Sin in a more moral, philosophical, and spiritual sense. This is why "guilt" is more so emphasised in the Latin explanations, and "corruption" more so in the Eastern mind set. However, the word guilt is equally used by Oriental Fathers, including His Holiness Pope Shenouda, however again, these fathers should be taken with the asterisk of the context of ALL their writings and sermons taken together, which are soundly Orthodox.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I don't belive the fathers leave man completely unaccountable for the actions of Adam. I believe it's classified under a disordered passion instead of an inherit guilt. Even the RCC has in recent years softened there stance on there previously held belief.

Do you guys think the difference between the Orthodox and RC View of "original sin" could just be a matter of semantics?

I mean... Both views emphasize the need for infant Baptism, and both views say that humans inherit a corruptible nature, and neither views would say that man is directly culpable of Adam's actions. Is it possible we are just saying the same thing with different terminology?

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I personally think there is a real difference and the different anthropology of Orthodoxy and RCC naturally flow out in the purpose of the incarnation and in the meaning of Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

I personally think there is a real difference and the different anthropology of Orthodoxy and RCC naturally flow out in the purpose of the incarnation and in the meaning of Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

But then again thats just my thought

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just wrote that as a suggestion.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

But, in the Orthodox concept, is it OK to say "we inherit Ancestral sin", so long as we are just referring to the fact that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the guilt itself?

I would think so, as with most Orthodox concepts, English often requires a bit of an asterisk* explanation..

It seems me that the Orthodox Fathers have always conceived of the inheritance of Sin in an almost biological sense of a corrupted nature. It is almost like our biology has come to be part of our separation from God, and this is what he inherited from Adam and Even, and how Christ through the Incarnation biologically restored human nature from the corruption. The Latin Fathers on the other hand, seem to examine the inheritance of Sin in a more moral, philosophical, and spiritual sense. This is why "guilt" is more so emphasised in the Latin explanations, and "corruption" more so in the Eastern mind set. However, the word guilt is equally used by Oriental Fathers, including His Holiness Pope Shenouda, however again, these fathers should be taken with the asterisk of the context of ALL their writings and sermons taken together, which are soundly Orthodox.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I don't belive the fathers leave man completely unaccountable for the actions of Adam. I believe it's classified under a disordered passion instead of an inherit guilt. Even the RCC has in recent years softened there stance on there previously held belief.

Do you guys think the difference between the Orthodox and RC View of "original sin" could just be a matter of semantics?

I mean... Both views emphasize the need for infant Baptism, and both views say that humans inherit a corruptible nature, and neither views would say that man is directly culpable of Adam's actions. Is it possible we are just saying the same thing with different terminology?

Again, I feel there is indeed a fundamental dichotomy between what Catholic fathers imply by corruption and what Orthodox fathers imply by corruption. It is my understanding that human nature was not corrupted by Sin in Essence, rather by potentiality. While Catholics agree about this idea for potentiality for sin, indeed, they still insist that at a spiritual level human nature was corrupted in Essence (at least I also understand that to be their argument). We agree for the need for Baptism, and we agree there is corruption by Sin, but I think we have different explanations as to the ontology of what all that actually means and what Baptism and corruption actually do in effect on humanity.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

hi, i want to comment on this old thread to save starting a new one.i would expect the north african orthodox / catholic early church fathers to teach something augustinian in this respect, and from what i have read from saint athanasius he seems to teach that we inherit corruptibility not the sin and guilt from adam, but what did saint cyril of alexandria teach on this?

i am an orthodox Christian and it makes much more sense to me that we inherit corruptibility and mortality and the consequences of sin than the actual sins, and i think this is the mainstream orthodox view (pls correct me if i am wrong).

but i can see that this is not a unanimous view and i am really interested in any links to saint cyril of alexandria.also please feel free to make other comments.

hi, i want to comment on this old thread to save starting a new one.i would expect the north african orthodox / catholic early church fathers to teach something augustinian in this respect, and from what i have read from saint athanasius he seems to teach that we inherit corruptibility not the sin and guilt from adam, but what did saint cyril of alexandria teach on this?

i am an orthodox Christian and it makes much more sense to me that we inherit corruptibility and mortality and the consequences of sin than the actual sins, and i think this is the mainstream orthodox view (pls correct me if i am wrong).

but i can see that this is not a unanimous view and i am really interested in any links to saint cyril of alexandria.also please feel free to make other comments.

St. Cyril taught the same as St. Athanasius in this regard.

St. Augustine wrote and thought in Latin, while St. Athanasius and St. Cyril wrote and thought in Greek. It was much later that St. Cyril that there was any influence from St. Augustine in Alexandria.

St. Cyril says:

Quote

What has Adam’s guilt to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say : “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for parents, but the soul which had sinned, it shall die.” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which had sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner.... After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin. [Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Explanation of the Letter to the Romans: Migne PG 74, col 788-89 in: Romans By Gerald Lewis Bray, Thomas C. Oden pp 142-143]

hi, i want to comment on this old thread to save starting a new one.i would expect the north african orthodox / catholic early church fathers to teach something augustinian in this respect, and from what i have read from saint athanasius he seems to teach that we inherit corruptibility not the sin and guilt from adam, but what did saint cyril of alexandria teach on this?

i am an orthodox Christian and it makes much more sense to me that we inherit corruptibility and mortality and the consequences of sin than the actual sins, and i think this is the mainstream orthodox view (pls correct me if i am wrong).

but i can see that this is not a unanimous view and i am really interested in any links to saint cyril of alexandria.also please feel free to make other comments.

St. Cyril taught the same as St. Athanasius in this regard.

St. Augustine wrote and thought in Latin, while St. Athanasius and St. Cyril wrote and thought in Greek. It was much later that St. Cyril that there was any influence from St. Augustine in Alexandria.

St. Cyril says:

Quote

What has Adam’s guilt to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say : “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for parents, but the soul which had sinned, it shall die.” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which had sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner.... After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin. [Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Explanation of the Letter to the Romans: Migne PG 74, col 788-89 in: Romans By Gerald Lewis Bray, Thomas C. Oden pp 142-143]

I think the way St. Augustine defines "guilt" and the way the East defines "guilt" are two different things. I've come a long way since 2005 in these issues, but I think St. Augustine for many of his writings on this issue is highly misunderstood. That's my personal issue.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

thanks for that.does anyone have any online link to:"Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Explanation of the Letter to the Romans: Migne PG 74, col 788-89 in: Romans By Gerald Lewis Bray, Thomas C. Oden pp 142-143"or do you know where i can buy it? maybe Christian bookshops would have it, what do you think?

thanks for that.does anyone have any online link to:"Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Explanation of the Letter to the Romans: Migne PG 74, col 788-89 in: Romans By Gerald Lewis Bray, Thomas C. Oden pp 142-143"or do you know where i can buy it? maybe Christian bookshops would have it, what do you think?

I'm not aware of a place that has it online. I know some places still publish the Migne volumes (like here, though they don't have that particular one right now), but it seems pretty expensive.

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"